Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Mathematics coaches are often positioned as important mediators between district administrators and teachers regarding messages about ambitious and equitable instruction. Despite this, little research has sought to unpack the connection between what coaches learn at professional development and how they make their learning available to teachers. In this study, we partnered with one district administrator and four mathematics coaches and conducted 15 semi-structured interviews to better understand how these coaches made their professional learning available to teachers. Mathematics coaches emphasized using various structures and resources when making their professional learning available to teachers. Participants also highlighted challenges they encountered when striving to make their learning available. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

Keywords

mathematics coaching professional development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators . (2013). The role of elementary mathematics specialists in the teaching and learning of mathematics. https://amte.net/sites/default/files/emspositionstatement_amte.pdf

Baker

Hjalmarson

Fennell

(2022). Mathematics specialists as school-based leaders: Adapting responsibilities to address shifts in teaching and learning. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 14(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2022.2043664

Baker

C. K.

Saclarides

E. S.

Harbour

K. E.

Hjalmarson

M. A.

Livers

S. D.

Edwards

K. C.

(2021). Trends in mathematics specialist literature: Analyzing research spanning four decades. School Science and Mathematics, 122(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12507

Biancarosa

Byrk

A. S.

Dexter

E. R.

(2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student learning. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/653468

Campbell

P. F.

Malkus

N. N.

(2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1086/657654

Chval

K. B.

Arbaugh

Lannin

J. K.

Van Garderen

Cummings

Estapa

A. T.

Huey

M. E.

(2010). The transition from experienced teacher to mathematics coach: Establishing a new identity. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1086/653475

Desimone

L. M.

Pak

(2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241947

Ellington

Whitenack

Edwards

(2017). Effectively coaching middle school teachers: A case for teacher and student learning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46(1), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.012

Fennell

(2017). We need mathematics specialists now: A historical perspective and next steps. In McGatha

M. B.

Rigelman

N. R.

(Eds.), Elementary mathematics specialists: Developing, refining, and examining programs that support mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 3–18). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

10.

Gallucci

Van Lare

M. D.

Yoon

I. H.

Boatright

(2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919–963. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371497

11.

Gibbons

L. K.

Cobb

(2016). Content-focused coaching: Five key practices. The Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 237–259.

12.

Gibbons

L. K.

Cobb

(2017). Focusing on teacher learning opportunities to identify potentially productive coaching activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117702579

13.

Gningue

S. M.

Peach

Schroder

(2013). Developing effective mathematics teaching: Assessing content and pedagogical knowledge, student-centered teaching, and student engagement. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(3), 621–646. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/tme/vol10/iss3/6

14.

Greeno

J. G.

(2006). Learning in activity. In Sayer

R. K.

(Ed.), The Cambridge hanbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Greeno

J. G.

Gresalfi

M. S.

(2008). Opportunities to learn in practice and identity. In Moss

P. A.

Pullin

D. C.

Gee

J. P.

Haertel

E. H.

Youngs

L. J.

(Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 170–199). Cambridge University Press.

16.

Harbour

K. E.

Saclarides

E. S.

(2020). Mathematics coaches, specialists, and student achievement: Learning from the data. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(3), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720970701

17.

Harbour

K. E.

Saclarides

E. S.

Adelson

J. L.

Karp

(2021). Exploring relationships among responsibilities of mathematics coaches and specialists and student achievement. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10907

18.

Haydon

Leko

M. M.

Stevens

(2018). Teacher stress: Sources, effects, and protective factors. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 31(2), 99–107.

19.

Horn

I. S.

Garner

Kane

B. D.

Brasel

(2017). A taxonomy of instructional learning opportunities in teachers’ workgroup conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116676315

20.

Ippolito

Bean

R. M.

Sacha

(2023). Innovations in elementary literacy coaching: Sustaining coaching practices in virtual spaces. In Robertson

Hall

L. A.

Brock

(Eds), Innovations in literacy professional learning: Strengthening equity, access, and sustainability (pp. 213–239). Guilford Press.

21.

Jackson

Cobb

Wilson

Webster

Dunlap

Appelgate

(2015). Investigating the development of mathematics leaders’ capacity to support teachers’ learning on a large scale. ZDM, 47(1), 93–104.

22.

Jackson

Horn

I. S.

Cobb

(2018). Overview of the teacher learning subsystem. In Cobb

Jackson

Henrick

Smith

T. M.

the MIST team (Eds), Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Harvard Education Press.

23.

Kane

B. D.

Cobb

Gibbons

(2018). Supporting ambitious instruction at scale: The role of instructional coaching & the MIST team. In Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

24.

Kane

B. D.

Rosenquist

(2019). Relationships between instructional coaches’ time use and district- and school-level policies and expectations. American Educational Research Journal, 56(5), 1718–1768. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219826580

25.

Kane

B. D.

Saclarides

E. S.

(2022b). Doing the math together: Coaches’ professional learning through engagement in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09527-y

26.

Kane

B. D.

Saclarides

E. S.

(2022a). Content-focused coaches’ opportunities for professional learning: The influence of positionality in coach discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103889

27.

Knight

D. S.

(2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education Finance, 38(1), 52–80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23259121

28.

Lareau

(2021). Listening to people: A practical guide to interviewing, participant observation, data analysis, and writing it all up. University of Chicago Press.

29.

Lave

(1996). Understanding practice. Cambridge University Press.

30.

Lempp

(2020). Math workshop: Five steps to implementing guided math, learning stations, reflection, and more. Math Solutions.

31.

Munson

(2017). Examining the efficacy of side-by-side coaching for growing responsive teacher-student interactions in elementary classrooms. In Galindo

Newton

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the north American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 471–474). Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.

32.

Neuberger

(2012). Benefits of a teacher and coach collaboration: A case study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(2), 290–311.

33.

Poglinco

S. M.

Bach

A. J.

Hovde

Rosenblum

Saunders

Supovitz

J. A.

(2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America's choice schools. CPRE Research Report http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/35

34.

Polly

Mraz

Algozzine

(2013). Implications for developing and researching elementary school mathematics coaches. School Science and Mathematics, 113(6), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12029

35.

Prediger

Roesken-Winter

Leuders

(2019). Which research can support PD facilitators? Strategies for content-related PD research in the three-tetrahedron model. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(2), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09434-3

36.

Rigelman

Wray

(2017). Current state of mathematics specialist state certification and standards. In McGatha

M. B.

Rigelman

N. R.

(Eds.), Elementary mathematics specialists: Developing, refining, and examining programs that support mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 33–38). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

37.

Russell

J. L.

Correnti

Stein

M. K.

Bill

Hannan

Schwartz

Booker

L. N.

Pratt

N. R.

Matthis

(2020). Learning from adaptation to support instructional improvement at scale: Understanding coach adaptation in the TN Mathematics Coaching Project. American Educational Research Journal, 57(1), 148–187. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219854050

38.

Saclarides

E. S.

(2021). Understanding coaches’ access to support teaching and learning from the perspectives of three coach-principal dyads. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 5(1). http://go.southernct.edu/jelps/files/2021-spring-volume5-issue1/6-Understanding-Coaches-Access-to-Support-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf

39.

Saclarides

E. S.

(2022). Studying coach-teacher interactions during co-teaching. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2022.2052664

40.

Saclarides

E. S.

Harbour

K. E.

(2020). A case of one-on-one coaching to differentiate mathematics instruction. Professional Development in Education, 49(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1756900

41.

Saclarides

E. S.

Kane

B. D.

(2021). Understanding mathematics coaches’ development: Coaches’ attributions of their professional learning in school districts. International Journal of Educational Research, 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101815

42.

Saclarides

E. S.

Lubienski

S. T.

(2020). The influence of administrative policies and expectations on coach-teacher interactions. The Elementary School Journal, 120(3), 528–554. https://doi.org/10.1086/707196

43.

Saclarides

E. S.

Lubienski

S. T.

(2021). Teachers’ mathematics learning opportunities during one-on-one coaching conversations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 52(3), 257–300. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0092

44.

Saclarides

E. S.

Munson

(2021). Exploring the foci and depth of coach-teacher interactions during modeled lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103418

45.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th Ed.). Sage.

46.

Smith

M. S.

Stein

M. K.

(1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.

47.

Spangler

D. A.

Ovrich

R. L. B.

(2017). Models for mathematics specialist program development and delivery. In McGatha

M. B.

Rigelman

N. R.

(Eds.), Elementary mathematics specialists: Developing, refining, and examining programs that support mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 41–52). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

48.

Sun

Wilhelm

A. G.

Larson

Frank

(2014). Exploring colleagues’ professional influence on mathematics teachers’ learning. Teachers College Record, 116(6), 1–30.

49.

Sutton

J. T.

Burroughs

E. A.

Yopp

D. A.

(2011). Coaching knowledge: Domains and definitions. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 13(2), 13–20.

50.

Weiss

R. S.

(1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. Simon and Schuster.

51.

Yopp

D. A.

Burroughs

E. A.

Sutton

J. T.

Greenwood

M. C.

(2019). Variations in coaching knowledge and practice that explain elementary and middle school mathematics teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(1), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9373-3

An Exploration of How Mathematics Coaches Make Their Own Professional Learning Available to Teachers

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References